Broadcasting Bill brings fears of muzzling

Press, 20 October 1976, Page 1

Broadcasting Bill brings fears of muzzling

By

KEN COATES

Broadcasters will meet tomorrow to decide their future action on the Broadcasting Bill. On the face of it, the bill refers to high standards and ethics, but there is a strong fear it could be used to force loss of independence, to muzzle broadcasting journalists, and to open the door to Government dictation.

One clause of the bill provides that the new Broadcasting Corporation (replacing the present separ- ' ate television and radio corporations) “shall have regard to the general policy of the Government...” The clause also provides that the corporation "shall comply with any directions given by the Minister to the corporation . . . pursuant to the general policy of the Government in relation to the functions and powers of ' the corporation.” Some broadcasters see this as sanction, not only for the Government’s being able to dictate how broadcasters shall work, but for , requiring that they bear in mind “general Government policy’’ when making decisions. The bill charges the corporation with maintaining programme standards generally acceptable in the community, and adds that it shall have regard to: I The provision of a range s of programmes which i will cater in a balanced i way for the varied in- s terests and tastes of 1 different sections of the i community. i

The need to ensure that a New Zealand identity is developed and mainmaintained in all programme areas. The observance of standards of good taste and decency. The accurate and impartial gathering and presentation of news, in the public interest, a wording to recognised standards of objective journalism. The principle that when controversial issues of public importance are discussed, a reasonable opportunity is given for significant points of view to be presented, either in the same programme or in other programmes within the period of current interest. The maintenance of law and order, and the rejection of broadcasts which might tend to incite crime or to provoke disorder. The privacy of the individual. Broadcasters examining these provisions say that at first sight they seem to represent standard journalistic ethics — most responsible journalists believe in balanced reporting, that the individual has rights to privacy, and that

news gathering should be impartial. But they say that the assessment and enforcement of these ethics have so far been carried out by the professional broadcasters themselves. By spelling out the rules, so the argument goes, the Government has put them in the Statutes and has in the process opened the door for the perversion of these ethics for its own ends. By using the words, “in the public interest,” the law would be open to the interpretation that news can only be transmitted if it is in the public interest. The problem is that while broadcasters would adhere to the principle that a free flow of information is always in the public interest, politicians would have a different view. From the way broadcasters read the bill, the ultimate decision about what is in the public interest now rests in politicians’ hands —and the dangers of that are obvious. Another concern is the provision making it compulsory for news and current-affairs programmes to give time for all “significant” views on controversial issues. This is seen as giving the Government unlimited

access to programmes, as it must by its very nature always have “significant” views on issues. In such a situation, the Opposition would give its opinion, followed by trade unions, employers, and so on. One or more viewpoints could have been adequately covered in another branch of the media—thus the provision is considered not so much dangerous as unworkable. But broadcasters, especially journalists, are most concerned about the provision which stipulates that news items should be rejected if they “ . . . might tend to . . . provoke disorder.” There is a feeling that if this provision was to be strictly imposed, it would preclude coverage of such topics as the All Blacks’ departure to South Africa, the arrival of the U.S.S. Truxtun, cover of disputes which might lead to strikes, and even coverage of particularly inflammatory speeches which could lead to some form of disorder. Realists concede that a blanket prohibition of such news coverage is unlikely; but there is a fear that with these laws on the Statute Book, items which affect the Government could be prevented from being broadcast.